*** This bug has been confirmed by popular vote. ***

make sure you review the last few posts of the forum thread.  valid points are made about a user being able to remove sub-folders purposely from scanning by settings these attributes.

i'm for the idea of having the scanner ignore hidden folders, (but not hidden files).

I'd probably exclude all with the Hidden flag set.

- It is always easy in Explorer to tell if a file has the hidden attribute set
- It is easy to set and unset the attribute in Explorer
- Users might, for legitimate reasons, wish to exclude certain files from scanning
- Excluding hidden files/folders will also exclude true Windows "protected operating system files" (those that are hidden when, the default, "hide protected operating system files" option is set in Explorer). Windows distinguishes these as files with BOTH the System AND Hidden attributes set.

you can't do that b/c by default WMP marks its album art as hidden.  you want SBS to use hidden WMP art.

the more likely user scenario would be users wanting to exclude folders, not specific files.

I meant when scanning for music. I assumed that it would be posible to scan for music, excluding hidden files, but include them when scaning for art, for the reason you mention.

If this is not possible for some reason what you suggest would work, but it does make it that little bit trickier to explain what will and will not be included. Not saying its impossible but I think it will lead to little more confusion your way.

I agree that non-hidden system files/folders should be scanned. Not 100% sure about how to handle hidden image files. Michael, your thoughts?

FWIW I think ALL hidden files should be excluded from SCANNING (music, video and images, to add to library), but when looking for art to go with media already found you need to include hidden, since WMP sets album art with system and hidden properties.

Andy and Michael,

the default behavior of all WMP versions i have used, is to put art files in the folder as HIDDEN and SYSTEM and ARCHIVE attributed files.

if you exclude art files b/c they have any of those attributes, you will break MANY peoples exp, including mine, but esp WMP users.  (i rip with EAC but i used to let WMP add art and extra tags after the fact)

I think the WMP artwork issue was already fixed under a separate bug entry. Let's keep this bug about whether or not to scan items that only contain the system attribute.

i think everyone agrees that having a "system" attribute is no good reason not to scan the folder/file.

starting at post 119 in the thread above, there is some worthy discussion about if server should omit folders, not files, marked as "hidden"

Other than WMP artwork, does anyone have an example of a real-world case where this broke something? Do people store media in system folders on purpose?

Andy, the initial post to this bug has a link to the real world example you are looking for.

Who knows how that user ended up with music in a system folder, but he did. Maybe by accident, maybe it came from someone else. Probably the folder was originally created with an earlier version of Windows.

The problem is that on W7 there is no way to tell that this attribute is set without resorting to the command line. Folders with just the system attribute set look the same in Explorer, the properties for the file/folder do not even tell you the status of the attribute, let alone allow you to set/unset it.

The point is that this atrribute alone means nothing. Real "system files" have both the system and hidden attributes set. Setting just the hidden attribute is a legitimate user or admin way of hiding a folder from normal view. So, really it is wrong for SBS to exclude files with just this attribute. Better to exclude from scanning those with the hidden attribute, which would cover both real system files and user files that have been deliberately hidden (and show as such in the UI). We just need to be sure to include hidden files when looking for WMP artwork, for reasons discussed previously.

(In reply to comment #12)
> Andy, the initial post to this bug has a link to the real world example you are
> looking for.
> 
> Who knows how that user ended up with music in a system folder, but he did.
> Maybe by accident, maybe it came from someone else. Probably the folder was
> originally created with an earlier version of Windows.
> 
> The problem is that on W7 there is no way to tell that this attribute is set
> without resorting to the command line. Folders with just the system attribute
> set look the same in Explorer, the properties for the file/folder do not even
> tell you the status of the attribute, let alone allow you to set/unset it.
> 
> The point is that this atrribute alone means nothing. Real "system files" have
> both the system and hidden attributes set. Setting just the hidden attribute is
> a legitimate user or admin way of hiding a folder from normal view. So, really
> it is wrong for SBS to exclude files with just this attribute. Better to
> exclude from scanning those with the hidden attribute, which would cover both
> real system files and user files that have been deliberately hidden (and show
> as such in the UI). We just need to be sure to include hidden files when
> looking for WMP artwork, for reasons discussed previously.

Any file or folder or file with either the system or hidden attribute set should be excluded from scanning. This would neatly avoid the recycle bin being scanned...
I guess I am disagreeing with the bug...
There is no legitimate circumstance where hidden/system attributes are set and the files should be included.

(In reply to comment #13)
> (In reply to comment #12)
> > Andy, the initial post to this bug has a link to the real world example you are
> > looking for.
> > 
> > Who knows how that user ended up with music in a system folder, but he did.
> > Maybe by accident, maybe it came from someone else. Probably the folder was
> > originally created with an earlier version of Windows.
> > 
> > The problem is that on W7 there is no way to tell that this attribute is set
> > without resorting to the command line. Folders with just the system attribute
> > set look the same in Explorer, the properties for the file/folder do not even
> > tell you the status of the attribute, let alone allow you to set/unset it.
> > 
> > The point is that this atrribute alone means nothing. Real "system files" have
> > both the system and hidden attributes set. Setting just the hidden attribute is
> > a legitimate user or admin way of hiding a folder from normal view. So, really
> > it is wrong for SBS to exclude files with just this attribute. Better to
> > exclude from scanning those with the hidden attribute, which would cover both
> > real system files and user files that have been deliberately hidden (and show
> > as such in the UI). We just need to be sure to include hidden files when
> > looking for WMP artwork, for reasons discussed previously.
> 
> Any file or folder or file with either the system or hidden attribute set
> should be excluded from scanning. This would neatly avoid the recycle bin being
> scanned...
> I guess I am disagreeing with the bug...
> There is no legitimate circumstance where hidden/system attributes are set and
> the files should be included.

I understand what you are saying Phil, but did you read the initial post and the linked thread? Also, you voted for it back in the day :;

The point is that if, somehow, the system attribute gets set, without the hidden attribute (eg. it's already set on a music folder on an old USB stick):

- the file and its folder look completely identical in Windows Explorer
- The file/folder properties also give no indication that the file/folder is in anyway different
- Players and tag editors see and play the files just fine
- But SBS will silently skip the files, give no indication of why, leaving the user mystified!

- Real Windows system files must have both the system attribute and hidden attribute set - "system" on its own is means nothing

I do understand your logic and acknowledged that in my initial post here, but the problem is caused by Microsoft and the weird way, in W7, they have removed the ability to see the status of this attribute or set it from the GUI. Most importantly, other than some purest view of what is right I can see no downside whatsoever of including such files! :)

Phil Leigh,

did you not read my comments?  do you not know that WMP makes art files "HSA" that server needs to scan?

you CAN make a legit case that HIDDEN FOLDERS should be skipped by the scanner; but there is no legitimate case to make, in the real world, that hidden FILES (given WMP art) or 'system folders/files,' should NOT be scanned in.

now, in theory, i'd probably agree with you...  but windows behvior makes it impossible to do so.

(In reply to comment #15)
> Phil Leigh,
> did you not read my comments?  do you not know that WMP makes art files "HSA"
> that server needs to scan?
> you CAN make a legit case that HIDDEN FOLDERS should be skipped by the scanner;
> but there is no legitimate case to make, in the real world, that hidden FILES
> (given WMP art) or 'system folders/files,' should NOT be scanned in.
> now, in theory, i'd probably agree with you...  but windows behvior makes it
> impossible to do so.

1) WMP is a steaming pile of cr@p. The problem here is that wmp is simply wrong. SBS/LMS should cater for (the vast majority of) applications that are functioning properly. 

2) Does your real world not include the Recycle Bin?

3) In the real world that I inhabit, files/folders are made hidden/system by correctly functioning applications/parts of the OS for valid reasons...or explicitly by users. Applications are supposed to respect these attributes. If those attributes are erroneously set, the solution is NOT to ignore them, it is to correct them at source. The ATTRIB command is one all Windows users should understand, especially as the Win GUI barely pays lip service to attributes.

4) I would be happy with an option to include/exclude H and/or S files and folders - but it should NOT be the default behaviour.

(In reply to comment #16)
> Does your real world not include the Recycle Bin?
> 
Phil, the Recycle Bin, like all "protected operating system files" (the ones hidden when this option is checked in Explorer folder and search options) has BOTH the system attribute AND hidden attribute set.

So, understanding the purity of your argument, we come back to the fact that skipping hidden files will skip all files hidden deliberately by the user AND all true system files. Additionally hiding files with only the system attribute set is totally unnecessary and, given the way such files are displayed in W7 (identically to any other regular files)a diagnostic nightmare.

If purity is insisted upon then IMO it is necessary to scan system folders but then skip anything contained in them and log the fact in the scanner log, so people can see what is happening. However, that is clearly more work than just simply including them as this ticket suggests.

Phil, you're just all wet on this one.

the default behavior should be for server to AVOID unnecessary problems and support calls.  imo, that means the following:

1. server should scan in ALL files, whether or not they are hidden, system, or both.  (and obviously, i mean whatever is in the root and sub-folder directories that the user specifies to server)

2. server should scan in ALL system folders, no matter what; (again, from the root the user specifies).

3. server should SKIP hidden folders.

its not that i disagree with your premise, in theory what you say is true.  but server isn't here to martyr itself on theory.  by your standard, the TCMP frame wouldn't be respected, and so on...  you can think of many examples where server conforms out of practicality, and this is just one of those times it nees to.  you may feel it is ok to break WMP users exp, as an example, but how does that translate into sales?  thats the POV that matters.

besides, this proposal is also easiest to implement, and dosn't call for an option.  its simply ludicrous to say that WMP isn't functioning properly btw, b/c it is functioning EXACTLY the way microsoft intends it to, inspite of your judgments, which are based on, hmm, what exactly?  ;)  WMP has always, ALWAYS, made art files HSA, and thats b/c they don't want them visible, or mistakenly deleted.

(In reply to comment #18)
> Phil, you're just all wet on this one.
> 
> the default behavior should be for server to AVOID unnecessary problems and
> support calls.  imo, that means the following:
> 
> 1. server should scan in ALL files, whether or not they are hidden, system, or
> both.  (and obviously, i mean whatever is in the root and sub-folder
> directories that the user specifies to server)
> 
> 2. server should scan in ALL system folders, no matter what; (again, from the
> root the user specifies).
> 
> 3. server should SKIP hidden folders.
> 
> its not that i disagree with your premise, in theory what you say is true.  but
> server isn't here to martyr itself on theory.  by your standard, the TCMP frame
> wouldn't be respected, and so on...  you can think of many examples where
> server conforms out of practicality, and this is just one of those times it
> nees to.  you may feel it is ok to break WMP users exp, as an example, but how
> does that translate into sales?  thats the POV that matters.
> 
> besides, this proposal is also easiest to implement, and dosn't call for an
> option.  its simply ludicrous to say that WMP isn't functioning properly btw,
> b/c it is functioning EXACTLY the way microsoft intends it to, inspite of your
> judgments, which are based on, hmm, what exactly?  ;)  WMP has always, ALWAYS,
> made art files HSA, and thats b/c they don't want them visible, or mistakenly
> deleted.
Mike, I'm fairly relaxed by your proposal. personally though I still think that both hidden files and folders should be skipped when scanning, but included when looking for art. I believe these are two separate steps in the process anyway, using a different "filter" for the art scan should be trivial. However, if there is a reason why both files and art need to use the same filter yours is a workable solution.

Thinking about this some more we could argue that a TRUELY purist solution SHOULD include files with only the system attribute set.

Windows has both a system attribute and a hidden attribute for a reason. "Real" protected operating system files have both attributes set. We can only presume that a valid file with only the system attribute set has been setup that way specifically to indicate that although it is a system file it should NOT be hidden. As such, it should be included in any scan for that reason alone!

(In reply to comment #19)
> Mike, I'm fairly relaxed by your proposal. personally though I still think that
> both hidden files and folders should be skipped when scanning, but included
> when looking for art. I believe these are two separate steps in the process
> anyway, using a different "filter" for the art scan should be trivial. However,
> if there is a reason why both files and art need to use the same filter yours
> is a workable solution.

i'm fine with that too, if they want to have one rule for art, and another rule
for everything else.  the devs could choose that without objection from me.

my thinking tho was that it would be easiest to simply have one rule for all,
that was always predictable and applied to everything, thereby eliminating
guesswork.  that is relevant given the 7.7 push to include photos, videos,
dlna, etc...  as well as audio.

also, i'm not trying to attack Phil at all, he is EXTREMELY knowledgeable, and
we agree on many other things, i'm just trying to bring him to the light on
this...  i'm fairly sure the Devs already agree, they just need the time to do
it.

> Mike, I'm fairly relaxed by your proposal. personally though I still think that
> both hidden files and folders should be skipped when scanning, but included
> when looking for art. 

That's exactly how it is implemented, isn't it? We needed this change for the WMP artwork issue mentioned.

I'm willing to close this bug as WORKSFORME or WONTFIX.

Michael,

afaik, server does not behave as i describe it should in comment 18

i believe changes need to be made to server to make it behave as i laid out in comment 18

so please don't close this bug, until that happens.

(In reply to comment #22)
> > Mike, I'm fairly relaxed by your proposal. personally though I still think that
> > both hidden files and folders should be skipped when scanning, but included
> > when looking for art. 
> 
> That's exactly how it is implemented, isn't it? We needed this change for the
> WMP artwork issue mentioned.
> 
> I'm willing to close this bug as WORKSFORME or WONTFIX.
The point of this bug is that currently files with just the System attribute set are skipped. SBS should ignore the system attribute altogether and choose what is inlcuded in a scan based only on the Hidden attribute.

In so much as a file having "System" but not "Hidden" attributes set makes sense ("real" "protected operating system files" always have both S and H set) then these files are specifically, logically, NOT Hidden, so should be included.

(In reply to comment #24)
> (In reply to comment #22)
> > > Mike, I'm fairly relaxed by your proposal. personally though I still think that
> > > both hidden files and folders should be skipped when scanning, but included
> > > when looking for art. 
> > 
> > That's exactly how it is implemented, isn't it? We needed this change for the
> > WMP artwork issue mentioned.
> > 
> > I'm willing to close this bug as WORKSFORME or WONTFIX.
> The point of this bug is that currently files with just the System attribute
> set are skipped. SBS should ignore the system attribute altogether and choose
> what is inlcuded in a scan based only on the Hidden attribute.
> In so much as a file having "System" but not "Hidden" attributes set makes
> sense ("real" "protected operating system files" always have both S and H set)
> then these files are specifically, logically, NOT Hidden, so should be
> included.

I see no-one wants to comment on the Recycle Bin (hidden + system, may contain deleted music files).

I'm fine with ignoring attributes on ARTWORK. But NOT on music files. "Hidden" needs to be respected on music files. "System" can be ignored on music files - indeed on any files.

(In reply to comment #25)
> > I see no-one wants to comment on the Recycle Bin (hidden + system, may contain deleted music files).
> > 
> I see no-one wants to comment on the Recycle Bin (hidden + system, may contain
> deleted music files).
> 
> I'm fine with ignoring attributes on ARTWORK. But NOT on music files. "Hidden"
> needs to be respected on music files. "System" can be ignored on music files -
> indeed on any files.
Phil, that's exactly what this bug asks for - that SBS/LMS ignore the System Attribute. We are in violent agreement!

BTW I did comment on the recycle bin:

(In reply to comment #17)
> (In reply to comment #16)
> > Does your real world not include the Recycle Bin?
> > 
> Phil, the Recycle Bin, like all "protected operating system files" (the ones
> hidden when this option is checked in Explorer folder and search options) has
> BOTH the system attribute AND hidden attribute set.

As Recycle Bin has the hidden attribute set it will be skipped by the proposed solution. The System attribute is neither here nor there.

yeah, sounds like we all agree now, "system" attrib only should be ignored whether it is on a file or folder.

the only question is how to handle "hidden" attribs?  i think my suggestion in comment 18 is the easiest to implement, and the easiest to explain and troubleshoot, however if the devs want to set up different handling for art vs other files, and otherwise treat hidden files/folders the same, fine by me.  they should just be aware that might become more complex with 7.7

btw Phil, even if receycle bin wouldn't be skipped as a hidden folder, which is what i proposed, whats the real harm?  the files show up.  so they either empty recycle bin, or get told to move their files to a folder off the root, which is where they should be to begin with.  files/folders shouldn't be stored directly off the root regardless of this issue.

(In reply to comment #27)
> yeah, sounds like we all agree now, "system" attrib only should be ignored
> whether it is on a file or folder.
> the only question is how to handle "hidden" attribs?  i think my suggestion in
> comment 18 is the easiest to implement, and the easiest to explain and
> troubleshoot, however if the devs want to set up different handling for art vs
> other files, and otherwise treat hidden files/folders the same, fine by me. 
> they should just be aware that might become more complex with 7.7
> btw Phil, even if receycle bin wouldn't be skipped as a hidden folder, which is
> what i proposed, whats the real harm?  the files show up.  so they either empty
> recycle bin, or get told to move their files to a folder off the root, which is
> where they should be to begin with.  files/folders shouldn't be stored directly
> off the root regardless of this issue.

To be clear where I am on this:

1) Artwork - sure, ignore any attributes you like - if this has to be done to pander to WMP then fine.

2) Music files - Hidden should be respected (it is unreasonable to expect people to understand that the Recycle Bin is not respected and telling them (and me!) that they shouldn't use it as designed is also unreasonable). 

MUSIC FILES DO NOT GET SET TO HIDDEN BY ACCIDENT.

regards
Phil

i don't really understand what you mean by point 2, nor am i sure that music files don't get set to hidden by mistake, but i do tend to agree that it doesn't OFTEN happen, and is pretty rare.  i think maybe you missed the point made that as a hidden folder, it would be skipped, or at least i think so, since even tho it shows, its a special case and still hidden attrib afaik.

regardless, i just want it clear to the devs that each approach has pro and cons, and what they are.  i think mine is the most sensible, from a support/troubleshooting POV, if not in other ways, but of course other opinions are valid, as i said.

my main point, is i think "pandering" to WMP, the second most used music app, (not by me tho!) makes sense, and i'm glad u no longer object to that.  given the degree of pandering server does with itunes, i think its a small deal.

(In reply to comment #29)
>i just want it clear to the devs

To make it doubly clear for the devs(!) This bug is really not about the hidden attribute at all, which may well be treated by SBS in the way suggested already (hence Michael's post yesterday).

This bug is about changing the way the SYSTEM attribute is treated - Unlike at present, the status of this attribute should be ignored when considering whether files should be included or /excluded. Currently it is treated by SBS as a second "psuedo-hidden" attribute, which is not correct. All files that should be hidden from scanning, including true "protected operating system" files have the HIDDEN attribute set and it is this attribute that should be used when deciding whether to include a file/folder when scanning.